I'll not defend the bill itself here (in fact I previously...

I'll not defend the bill itself here (in fact I previously criticized it), but maximalist demands as a starting position to negotiate down from in late legislative horse-trading to get to a reasonable compromise are a standard practice.

Sometimes I get the sense that people on here think bills (particularly AI bills) should come fully baked, and that's just not an accurate depiction of reality. There is almost always a ton of horse-trading, packaging, trimming, etc. that goes on; and having items to give up is a critical part of any negotiation.

Would it be good if this thing passed in its current state?

Absolutely not. But it's only just been introduced.

In my opinion, it's worth waiting for what a post-committee bill would look like before making statements like "how anyone could ever have thought this was ok", particularly given that the idea of exchanging third party enforceable safety protocols for tail risk liability protection is not a bad one (there are fair critiques here, I know @CharlieBull0ck disagrees, but it is at least not an absurd proposal).

A deal worked out under that framework could have ended up looking quite reasonable in the end, but now it's been toxified, so I suspect it's dead in the water.
x.com/Miles_Brundage…